contrary, be proof of the facts stated therein" for section 35 and " .... that document shall be admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or authority of the person appearing to have signed it and shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be proof of the facts stated therein." for section 54(2). With due respect to the petitioner's counsel, we are not persuaded to disregard the vivid powers conferred upon the Court by the impugned provisions for purposes of regulating and controlling the admission of Certificates and documents referred therein. We thus respectfully disagree with the petitioner's counsel omnibus complaints. After all, we wish to remind that, it is trite law, as alluded to earlier, that, the misconduct practice and, or any malpractice that may be perpetrated by law actors in judicial processes or during administration of any law are matters that cannot be challenged through a Constitutional petition. This is because, those acts/misconducts cannot constitute grounds that can be relied on to examine the efficiency or deficiency of any law and for that matter, have nothing to do with the Constitutionality of any law. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident to us that tendering of "a document" or "certificate" for admission under sections 35 and 54 of POTA is a question of practice and, or administration of law which, as we have held, is controlled and regulated by the Court. That is why we have just observed in bold above that the Court can only admit in evidence the document under section 35 or Certificate under section 54(2) if there is no any evidence to the contrary. Under the circumstance above clarified, we do not see how the two provisions violate article 13(1), (6)(a) &(b) of the Constitution regarding the rights to- equality before the law, presumption Page 34 of 37